The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is a case of illegal search and seizure. It went to the Supreme Court in 1961. It is important to today’s society because it might mean the difference between guilty and innocent. I agree with the Supreme Court because it is illegal to access private property without a warrant or consent. The case lasted until June 19, 1961. On May 23, 1957, three police officers in the city of Cleveland, Ohio knocked on the door of Dolly Mapp and held up a piece of paper that wasn’t the warrant that gave them access inside. The three officers gave Mapp very little information as to why they were there. The real reason they were there was because an anonymous phone tip stated that Virgil Ogletree, a suspect of a recent bombing, was
The case involves the question of whether or not the police were within their rights to search the trash that was left at the curbside without a warrant. The amendment
Kentucky v. King 1 Audelio Camacho Professor Alva AJ 180 3-27-17 Kentucky v. King The Supreme Court Case of Kentucky v. King occurred on October 2005, when Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky did a “buy bust operation in which a confidential informant attempted to buy crack cocaine from a suspected drug dealer.” The undercover was police officer Gibbons. When officer Gibbons gave the signal that the transaction was completed, the police approached the scene with their marked police cars. Once they were close to the suspect, Officer Gibbons radioed in a description of the suspect and said that King had gone through a specific hallway at a apartment complex. As the officers got to the hallway, a door was shut closed and the officers smelled
Klopfer vs North Carolina In 1967, Peter Klopfer, was an African-American biology professor at the University of Duke in North Carolina. One evening, he was present at a nonviolent sit in; which lead to his arrest later on for trespassing. This incident lead him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 13.
During the United States history, there have been events that have impacted the course and development of politics, becoming part of what is currently, and the McCulloch v. Maryland case has been one of the most influential events in the economic area. In addition, I believe that the courage that McCulloch had to refuse to pay the taxes imposed by Maryland was an elemental key part to continue with the processes of the growth of the United States National Bank and the regulation of the coin produced by the state banks; bringing at the end a financial balance. Furthermore, in a deeper insight, it promoted the analysis of the power of the Congress and the Constitution, because at the beginning the Constitution was taken as a literal explanation
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, in 1969, problems arose when Brandenburg, a leader of a Klu Klux Klan, held a KKK meeting in an Ohio farm. In the convention Brandenburg was filmed as he complained about the United States suppressing the white race. For the most part the film was inaudible but it was certain that Brandenburg had stated some demeaning opinions on African Americans and Jews. In the assembly some Klu Klux Klan members were holding weapons. Though Brandenburg was not, he made it clear that violence would not take place unless it was necessary.
In the quiet town of Florida City a robbery took place at Seminole Bank. The robber wore a mask, carried a gun, and got away with $20,000 in cash. Witnesses were unable to identify the robber by his physical appearance because he was wearing a mask. However, the witnesses recognized his voice and identified the robber as Mr. Smallwood. In the case of Smallwood v. State, Mr. Smallwood was accused of armed robbery of Seminole Bank in Florida City, Florida.
Michigan vs. Bay Mills is a recent case that was decided by the Supreme Court in 2013. I chose to research this case for my judicial process class because I found it interesting. It is interesting because I do not know much about the United States federal government, states and Native American tribe’s current relationship. I have always thought that Native Americans act on their own government system with no interference from the United States almost like they are a separate country/ nation just residing within the United States. However, after researching the Michigan vs. Bay Mills court case I now understand that its relationship is more complex.
The link above is a primary source over “The "Brandeis Brief" from Muller v. Oregon (1908).” Muller vs Oregon was one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases of the Progressive Era. Going into this case, Muller issue was, “is a state law setting a maximum workday for women constitutional?” Muller vs The State of Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908) was argued on January 5, 1908 and ending on February 24, 1908. Curt Muller was a laundry mat owner in Portland, Oregon who was charged with violating an Oregon law that strictly set a restricted maximum of ten hours a day for a women employee to work.
What crime was Ms. Mapp charged with? It was in May 1957, when Cleveland police forced entry into Dollree Mapp's home without a warrant. The Cleveland police was searching her home in look of a fugitive, that happened to be there. They wanted to question the man about a recent bombing and believed that this person was hiding inside Mapp’s house. No suspect was found and after an illegal instruction of her property with what appeared to be a fake warrant presented by the police, Mapp was charged with possession of obscene materials and numbers paraphernalia in her basement under the Ohio Revised Code section then in effect.
The case of The State v. Justin Ross Harris has received an immense amount of national news attention over the past two years. In June of 2014, Mr. Harris was traveling to work early one morning with his son, Cooper Harris. The father and son stopped by Chick-fil-a for breakfast and Mr. Harris allegedly forgot to drop Cooper off at daycare. Mr. Harris continued traveling to work, missing the turn for daycare, and arrived at work around nine o’clock a.m. that Wednesday morning. He arrived at work and exited his vehicle, leaving his son in his car seat for the entire work day.
The case of Skinner v. Oklahoma was argued on May 6th, 1942 and decided on June 1st, 1942. The Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act provided sterilization for a man or woman crimes involving “moral turpitude.” Oklahoma defined a "habitual offender" as someone who had been convicted two or more times which amounted to felonies involving moral turpitude and in result was sentenced to imprisonment. In this case, Jack T. Skinner had been convicted of three crimes, one for stealing a chicken and the other two for armed robbery.
They searched for the suspect and equipment that could be evidence of the bomber being present there, but did not find any evidence of it. Instead, they stumbled upon a suitcase in Mapp’s house that became very suspicious. The suitcase contained pornographic material and had shocking pictures inside. Mapp told police the contents of the suitcase did not belong to her, they belonged to a guest. Mapp was then arrested when the material was found, prosecuted, and found guilty.
The Supreme Court Case Gonzales vs. Oregon, argued on October 5, 2005, deals with an act that Oregon enacted, the “Death With Dignity Act.” Under this act, physicians had the power to prescribe fatal doses of controlled substances to patients who were terminally ill —meaning that suicide assisted by a doctor was now legal in Oregon. Attorney General John Ashcroft, in 2001, asked that law enforcement prosecute doctors who prescribed these lethal doses of controlled substances by issuing a ruling called the “Ashcroft Directive.” The Ashcroft Directive stated that under the Controlled Substances Act, suicide under a physician was not an actual “medical purpose,” and therefore, illegal. The General Attorney proceeding Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales,
In the case of Tomcik vs. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Janet Tomcik, the plaintiff, blamed the loss of her right breast on the fact that there was a major delay in her examination and treatment of her tumor. This could be known as nonfeasance negligence, which is the “failure to act when there is a duty to act,” (Pozgar, 2016). The corrections department, or in this case, the defendant, claimed that Tomcik`s cancer was already so developed, that her breast would have been removed regardless of when her official checkup and treatment took place. One stakeholder in this case is Janet Tomcik. She is the patient who not only lost her breast, but endured “physical pain, [and] emotional suffering,” (Tomcik, 1991).
In the case of State v. Barrett (1996), a drug detection team was brought in to conduct a random drug search of the high school on May 3, 1995 in St. Tammany Parish. Six classes were chosen by the principal, who had mentioned some of the selected classes were known to have some of the "problem" students, including the 18 year-old defendant. During the third classroom search, the defendant 's classroom, students were asked to empty their pockets and leave the room. The dogs were brought in and one of the dog 's alerted a smell on the defendant 's wallet. After the principal searched the wallet and found $400 in cash, he placed it in a different location, which the dog alerted on once again.